- Cited — HXA v Surrey County Council 2022-08-31
“…dgement in those circumstances that involves consideration of what is “fair, just and reasonable”. As Lord Millett observed in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59 at 108 the court is concerned to maintain the coherence of the law and the avoidance of inappropriate distinctions if injustice is to be avoided in other cases…”
- Cited — Khan v Meadows 2019-02-15
“…ities as to what were described as wrongful birth and wrongful conception cases. The starting point being identified by her as McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59. This was a failed sterilisation case in which the House of Lords, by a majority, allowed recovery to the mother for the loss and damage associated with her pr…”
- Cited — Khan v Meadows 2019-02-15
“…dgement in those circumstances that involves consideration of what is ‘fair, just and reasonable’. As Lord Millett observed in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59, 108, the court is concerned to maintain the coherence of the law and the avoidance of inappropriate distinctions if injustice is to be avoided in other cases.…”
- Cited — XX v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust 2018-12-19
“… would have been without the tort. He also has to give credit for any benefits received: hence the House of Lords' decision in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59 that the benefits of having a healthy, if initially unwanted, child must be taken to cancel out the costs of his upbringing.” Hale LJ then said:…”
- Applied — ARB v IVF Hammersmith & Anor 2018-12-17
“…The judge identified the crux of the matter as being whether the legal policy enunciated by the House of Lords in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59 and Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust [2004] 1 AC 309 and applicable to tortious claims founded on reasonable care obligations should apply equally…”
- Cited — Khan v MNX 2018-11-23
“…ities as to what were described as wrongful birth and wrongful conception cases. The starting point being identified by her as McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59. This was a failed sterilisation case in which the House of Lords, by a majority, allowed recovery to the mother for the loss and damage associated with her pr…”
- Cited — Khan v MNX 2018-11-23
“…dgement in those circumstances that involves consideration of what is ‘fair, just and reasonable’. As Lord Millett observed in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59, 108, the court is concerned to maintain the coherence of the law and the avoidance of inappropriate distinctions if injustice is to be avoided in other cases.…”